Yes, but that kills all the other go-routines in that process as well. In Erlang that would just affect the one thread.

You could build an erlang/OTP style supervision tree using recover at the top level to restart panic'd goroutines.

You're going to have a hard time maintaining consistent state but if you manage your bookkeeping very well that might work in a long lived process. If not you might end up leaking resources. Go routines and erlang processes are not mapping 1:1 with each other and I (maybe naively) assume that resources such as file descriptors and other subtle state modifications could easily survive a naive implementation of such a scheme causing eventual resource depletion.

Erlang is bulletproof in this respect.

That is true, and I suppose the fact that third party go libraries won't be written with this philosophy in mind means that you would have to audit all third party library use pretty carefully, which would make using this approach on projects of significant size untenable.

Defers are still called when the stack is unwound due to a panic. It's standard practise to clean up resources with a defer, so maybe it wouldn't be too unreasonable if you're mainly dealing with the standard libraries.

Would you bet your phone switchboard, nuclear plant or assembly line to that strategy?

Go is very much a work in development, it is a vast improvement over C but I highly doubt that this strategy will get you out of every corner case. It might get you from 'crash now' to 'crash a (little) while later' but I think you will still end up having an unpredictable element in there. It all depends on how ugly the crash is and once things become unpredictable leakage (even between go-routines) is not to be ruled out categorically.

Think of erlang processes to be about as well isolated as unix processes and think of go processes to be a bit more isolated than unix threads but not much more. The trick here is that erlang is essentially an OS inside a process and that go-routines are co-operative multi-tasking inside a process aided by one or more cpu threads. That's a lot closer to the C multi-threading model than erlang and that implies there are some risks.

It's worth noting that Erlang is only a soft-realtime language. I wouldn't bet my nuclear plant and only some assembly lines on it. (There's plenty I do bet on Erlang, though.)

Soft is the new hard ;-) If you reason about hard realtime you pretty soon end up with the question: how high can the probability be that it misses a deadline. If you run on modern embedded CPU's with pipelines and caches its often all you can do (I am aware that some are modeling the CPU with caches, memory and everything to achieve 100% but thats very expensive and if you switch CPU's there is half a year worth of modeling down the drain)

The real world hard realtime systems often are built like: lets test it (with deadline miss triggering a failure) and if it works make sure we still have 10% of safety margin (which will later be melted down because of features ;-)

That's valid, hard real time problems require guarantees that erlang can't give, that was an unwarranted exaggeration on my part. But anything that needs to be very long running (years or more) will need ironclad guarantees that it won't be leaking resources and I can't prove but suspect that erlang will do a lot better than go for those applications. Let's leave the nuclear plants and the assembly lines to RTos and QnX then :).

"require guarantees that erlang can't give" ... at the moment, working on it.

In the meantime note that the percentage of stuff that really needs hard realtime in many systems is quite low. What I do at the moment is run Erlang on RTEMS (see my other posts) keep the hard realtime parts as simple as possible (always a good idea), write them in C and run them on a higher prio than the Erlang runtime which handles all the complicated things. Works like a breeze in practice

I wonder whether Erlang insome form could provide hard realtime guarantees. Something along the lines of LING.

It's an interesting question. I think you'd need at least:

  * a way to define scheduling requirements on a process level (beyond current, coarse, priority settings),
  * bounded process message queues (this would be handy in soft-realtime Erlang),
  * deadline accurate receives, 
  * accurate control over resource allocation

I've been meaning to sit down with some theory and think through this more analytically, but the above are my BART thinking-time derived set of requirements. I'm sure there are cases--some which would be obvious, in retrospect--that are not covered by the above.

You'd have to run erlang directly on the hardware without an intermediary OS and you'd have to schedule the individual erlang processes using pre-emption and by giving them priorities. You'd also have to add a ready-list per priority.

After all, as long as BEAM is running as a child process of a host os that is not hard realtime you can't guarantee much of anything.

Well Erlang is running on RTEMS in production in industrial control systems http://www.grisp.org

Hard realtime processes to come

Of course. Apologies, I assumed that was a given. A large part of the appeal of Erlang the Language is Erlang the VM and the two aren't often divorced.

Yeah, that's what I meant with LING (Erlang on xen).

I have a project planned which when funded will give us hard realtime guarantees for certain Erlang processes.

This can only work of course if the underlying OS is also hard realtime capable. I have ported Erlang to the open source RTEMS http://www.rtems.org already. More details under http://www.grisp.org (sorry website not up to date but soon will be).

You'd also need to assert every time you called a function to make sure you got what you expected. I know basically nothing about Go, but I found this that says that it doesn't even have assertions:

http://golang.org/doc/faq#assertions